I could ask WHERE you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is 'immoral' (snip). I could ask you to cite it. (You won't be able to... it's a made up cultural tradition.)

Made up cultural tradition? Even if it were, what authority does the Court have dictate our cultural traditions? hmmm?

I guess in your opinion Jesus must have been a Thumper and a Moral Ayatollah, on the level of one of Pavlov's dogs, because he said; 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1]5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two [not, the three, four and five, etc.] will become one flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Now, if I were to ask you where you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is NOT immoral, and ask you to cite your authority, what can you cite that is anything more than a made up cultural tradition?

Well then I take it from your statement {Sex is morally neutral. That is man and man or man and women or women and women. There is no hierarchy. A man and women are not commit sin by enjoying each others company, nor are two men morally superior by enjoying each others company. } that you're talking about G-d's law when you use the word sin . I refer you to Romans 1.

You pontificated, "The point is that your intolerance is not what God wants." Well, you know what, you're precisely wrong! But you're at least bold with your foolish assertion! When this nation tolerates deviancy, it corrodes the society and destroys it, as shown repeatedly with the history of the Israelites ... so scripture proves you wrong, also. You're so far wrong that you don't deserve further recognition. But you further opined, "Jesus loved sinners and so should you." Sorry, homo-apologist, tolerance and agape love are not the same thing. But nice try, zoid. Peddle for the deviants to someone else. Your butties are disgusting.

206
posted on 06/26/2003 1:07:43 PM PDT
by MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)

I may get killed here, but I have never believed you can legislate sexual morality. I think the court was right. Most states don't have sodomy laws.

Abortion is interesting. I have long held in order to change abortion laws, you have to change the hearts and minds of women. This is happening. New polls show a clear majority of women are against abortion. I think it is quite possible that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. This will not outlaw abortion (contrary to what libs say). It will merely send the issue to the states where people will be able to have a say in whether abortion is legal or not.

I'm sorry. Explain to me why you are interested in where people stick their penis. Beyond that, what is the compelling interest of the state?

How do you get around the discrimination against a class of people without using the sophistry of Scalia. There is no excuse for prejudice. Hiding behind religion to justify your prejudice is even more disgusting.

I'm not peddling anything. I can't find anything in the Supreme Court's decision or in my statements to you which would compel you, or even suggest to you, that you go out and have any kind of sex . . . gay, straight or otherwise.

You talk about nations tolerating deviancy corroding and destroying society . . . tell me, what happens to nations that tolerate bigotry and discrimination? I have a clue for you, the answer is not in The Bible. The answer, my friend, is in the Constitution of the United States.

jayef wrote, (we'll dissect it as we go)I'm sorry. Explain to me why you are interested in where people stick their penis. Beyond that, what is the compelling interest of the state? jayef I'm only morally responsible for where I stick my body part, sweetums. You are responsible for yours. When sexual behavior effects society (as in healthcare costs, disease, corruption of children), I get very interested in that! Don't you, dear?... Or do you want to play and someone else pay?

How do you get around the discrimination against a class of people without using the sophistry of Scalia. Baby, deviants choose to be deviants, and they want to be identified for their sexual deviant proclivities. The deviants have set the stage, not Scalia. There is no excuse for prejudice. When a chosen class of behavior is a corrupter of society and a BIG drag on the healthcare system, it is in fact a good thing to be prejudiced against that sickness! Sorry you pansy-assed liberal deviancy apologists don't understand that. Grow up. Hiding behind religion to justify your prejudice is even more disgusting. You brought up religious, little nettle.

I'm not peddling anything. I can't find anything in the Supreme Court's decision or in my statements to you which would compel you, or even suggest to you, that you go out and have any kind of sex . . . gay, straight or otherwise. What a stupid strawman to try and raise! You have been hanging out with the wrong mental midgets, sweetums.

You talk about nations tolerating deviancy corroding and destroying society . . . tell me, what happens to nations that tolerate bigotry and discrimination? Again, a certain degree of intolerance is healthy for the society. When you and your deviant butties succeed in removing intolerance toward your deviancies (if you succeed), you will have destroyed this Republic for what you prefer, in the name of tolerance for your deviancy preferences. I have a clue for you, the answer is not in The Bible. The answer, my friend, is in the Constitution of the United States. You haven't a clue, son, not a clue.

212
posted on 06/26/2003 3:07:21 PM PDT
by MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)

As Scalia warns, and warns mightily, in his dissent, this ruling stikes down many more than just sodomy laws. There is now a claim to be made by the majority's theories that all laws outlawing any forms of sex are defunct.

But beyond that warning of Justice Scalia's, what would stop it there. A anarchy of Liberty is King today. No laws may restrict personal behaviour carried on in private, or even kept "discrete" in public.

As I read it ...

All private Gambling of all forms has just been made legal.

The Drug laws -- excluding of public intoxication -- all struck down.

Prostitution -- as long as keep discrete in public, or in private -- legal in fifty states and all territories.

Bigamy? OKAY!

GROUP Marriage? LEGAL!

Incest between adults? The Supremes have spake: "Go to it!"

The terms of copyright and patent have just been set to Zero days -- as long as one keeps it private.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.